Hello all.
I recently bought a 34 stone claymore to switch things up from my 28 stone bastie. The claymore is l/bc/f dismal balance/fair for str.
I'm still working on getting the RT to 3/4 (with Heroic Strength I get it there), but for some reason it seems like the bastie kills faster. At least in my testing vs. leucros, the bastie kills in 2-3 hits, while the claymore does it in 3-4, though it likes to break more bones and remove more limbs along the way.
Any idea why this would be? I would've thought the claymore would be more powerful
STR 27
AGI 24
2HE 110 (backtraining this up against swains to be my primary instead of HE).
Any thoughts are appreciated
-Xiphias
AXIPHIAS
ROCKYWILLIAMS1479
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 08:12 AM CDT
It could be that while each hit does a bit more damage with the claymore, you hit more often with the bastard sword due to the better balance. Not sure, but that's my guess.
DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
DRPrime - Celeres Turrance
JMF90
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 09:57 AM CDT
If you're killing in just a few hits, it's hard to get a good sense of it, since the largest factor is whether or not you hit a limb.
That said, bastard swords are insane weapons and often outperform claymores. It depends on stats, what you're hunting, et cetera.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
That said, bastard swords are insane weapons and often outperform claymores. It depends on stats, what you're hunting, et cetera.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
DARPISECK
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 03:37 PM CDT
94 stone claymores are better.
Segmere
Shadow Priest, Baron's Own Militia
"The best cure for insomnia is to get a lot of sleep." ~WC Fields
Segmere
Shadow Priest, Baron's Own Militia
"The best cure for insomnia is to get a lot of sleep." ~WC Fields
MAGHRIT
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 04:45 PM CDT
I'd have to agree. Balance. The bastie is goin to have better balance. Hands down. Your able to swing it better.
I'd be willing to bet the Bastie has Reasonably balance. And possibly more impact? Since you didn't post what the stats were for the bastie, I couldn't be for sure.
Jim
I'd be willing to bet the Bastie has Reasonably balance. And possibly more impact? Since you didn't post what the stats were for the bastie, I couldn't be for sure.
Jim
JMF90
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 05:41 PM CDT
>I'd be willing to bet the Bastie has Reasonably balance. And possibly more impact? Since you didn't post what the stats were for the bastie, I couldn't be for sure.
It is unlikely that the bastard sword does more impact damage, based on the template.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
It is unlikely that the bastard sword does more impact damage, based on the template.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
MARKCAT120
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 07:32 PM CDT
>>I'd be willing to bet the Bastie has Reasonably balance. And possibly more impact? Since you didn't post what the stats were for the bastie, I couldn't be for sure.
Axiphias: Could you post the Appraisal for the Bastard Sword, as well? That would give us a clearer picture of what's going on. If your 28 stone bastie is anything like mine, it probably has something like l/s/l res/fair in 2HE mode. Does that sound about right?
Axiphias: Could you post the Appraisal for the Bastard Sword, as well? That would give us a clearer picture of what's going on. If your 28 stone bastie is anything like mine, it probably has something like l/s/l res/fair in 2HE mode. Does that sound about right?
MAGHRIT
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/04/2010 11:13 PM CDT
>>It is unlikely that the bastard sword does more impact damage, based on the template.
Basties can't get better than fair impact? Heh, never knew that. Seriously. I thought they could. Oh wells.
Jim
Basties can't get better than fair impact? Heh, never knew that. Seriously. I thought they could. Oh wells.
Jim
MARKCAT120
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 12:50 AM CDT
>>It is unlikely that the bastard sword does more impact damage, based on the template.
>>Basties can't get better than fair impact? Heh, never knew that. Seriously. I thought they could. Oh wells.
Your first thought was right, Jim. Forged basties at 50 stones and higher can have moderate impact, while some store-bought ones have Heavy impact IIRC. I think what JMF90 was saying is that it's impossible (or seems to be) for a 28-stone bastie to have better impact than that 34-stone claymore because it's simply too light. A bastie with better impact would have to be heavier.
>>Basties can't get better than fair impact? Heh, never knew that. Seriously. I thought they could. Oh wells.
Your first thought was right, Jim. Forged basties at 50 stones and higher can have moderate impact, while some store-bought ones have Heavy impact IIRC. I think what JMF90 was saying is that it's impossible (or seems to be) for a 28-stone bastie to have better impact than that 34-stone claymore because it's simply too light. A bastie with better impact would have to be heavier.
MAGHRIT
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 01:01 AM CDT
>>Your first thought was right, Jim. Forged basties at 50 stones and higher can have moderate impact, while some store-bought ones have Heavy impact IIRC. I think what JMF90 was saying is that it's impossible (or seems to be) for a 28-stone bastie to have better impact than that 34-stone claymore because it's simply too light. A bastie with better impact would have to be heavier.
ahh...ok, I thought I remembered seeing one with moderate impact. But wasn't certain. Its why I was confused. But wasn't goin to come right out and say, Hey now, I"ve seen one!!! Since I don't know who had it, and if I was remembering right. lol.
Thanks!!!
Jim
ahh...ok, I thought I remembered seeing one with moderate impact. But wasn't certain. Its why I was confused. But wasn't goin to come right out and say, Hey now, I"ve seen one!!! Since I don't know who had it, and if I was remembering right. lol.
Thanks!!!
Jim
MARKCAT120
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 02:51 AM CDT
>>I recently bought a 34 stone claymore to switch things up from my 28 stone bastie. The claymore is l/bc/f dismal balance/fair for str.
>>I'm still working on getting the RT to 3/4 (with Heroic Strength I get it there)
Xiphias, since your claymore has such terrible balance, Agility isn't really a factor in determining your RT. It looks like you only need to bump up your STR one or two more points and you'd have a natural 3/4 RT on your claymore. If you get the average of your STR and AGIL to about 29-30, you should have minimum 1/2/3 RT on the 28-stone Bastie. (2s RT is for Draw, I believe).
Incidentally, the terrible balance on your claymore greatly reduces it's damage potential, even if the weapon has slightly higher slice and impact values. Take a look at the following chart to compare your dis/fair claymore to your reas/fair bastie. NOTE: This is simply an example of how balance/suitedness can affect attack power; this is not hard scientific evidence! (I can see the tomatoes being thrown already!).
So let's say Balance and Suitedness represent the following values:
Now we can assign values to the balance and suitedness of the two weapons. Now I'm going to introduce a new term: "Natural Attack Power" and we'll say that it is the power generated by your weapon based solely on your Strength and Agility Stats before the weapon's damage values are added in. The following formulas are for example's sake, but it should convey the idea of how STR and AGIL factor into combat damage. To determine the power from each stat, I multiplied that stat by the Balance/ Suitedness modifier from the table above. I then took the sum of the two modified stats to come up with the Natural Attack Power (NAP) for each weapon.
(In a previous post, Xiphias mentioned that he had 24 AGIL and 27 STR.)
From the chart, you can see that the Bastie has a NAP of 177, while the Claymore has a NAP of only 105. So based on his stats alone, the Bastard Sword would have about 70% more Natural Attack Power available to it than the Claymore, before the weapons damage was factored in. Since the damage rating of the Claymore is only marginally higher than that of the Bastie (l/bc/f vs. l/s/l), it's probably not great enough to offset the huge NAP deficit caused by the Dismal balance.
So there you go, Xiphias! A really long explanation for why your Bone-crushing Claymore takes more hits to kill than your Severe slice Bastie. I hope this was helpful! Oh, and the reason the claymore breaks more bones and severs more limbs is most likely because of the 'fair' impact. Higher impact weapons tend to have more 'explosive' combat hits. :-)
Happy Hunting!
>>I'm still working on getting the RT to 3/4 (with Heroic Strength I get it there)
Xiphias, since your claymore has such terrible balance, Agility isn't really a factor in determining your RT. It looks like you only need to bump up your STR one or two more points and you'd have a natural 3/4 RT on your claymore. If you get the average of your STR and AGIL to about 29-30, you should have minimum 1/2/3 RT on the 28-stone Bastie. (2s RT is for Draw, I believe).
Incidentally, the terrible balance on your claymore greatly reduces it's damage potential, even if the weapon has slightly higher slice and impact values. Take a look at the following chart to compare your dis/fair claymore to your reas/fair bastie. NOTE: This is simply an example of how balance/suitedness can affect attack power; this is not hard scientific evidence! (I can see the tomatoes being thrown already!).
So let's say Balance and Suitedness represent the following values:
| Balance/Suited | Value |
| Excellently | 6 |
| Well | 5 |
| Reasonably | 4 |
| Fairly | 3 |
| Poor | 2 |
| Dismal | 1 |
| Not | 0 |
Now we can assign values to the balance and suitedness of the two weapons. Now I'm going to introduce a new term: "Natural Attack Power" and we'll say that it is the power generated by your weapon based solely on your Strength and Agility Stats before the weapon's damage values are added in. The following formulas are for example's sake, but it should convey the idea of how STR and AGIL factor into combat damage. To determine the power from each stat, I multiplied that stat by the Balance/ Suitedness modifier from the table above. I then took the sum of the two modified stats to come up with the Natural Attack Power (NAP) for each weapon.
(In a previous post, Xiphias mentioned that he had 24 AGIL and 27 STR.)
| 28-stone Reas/Fair Bastie | Power |
| AGL 24 x 4 (reas) = | 96 |
| STR 27 x 3 (fairly) = | 81 |
| Natural Attack Power (sum) | 177 |
| 34-stone Dis/Fair Claymore | Power |
| AGL 24 x 1 (dismal) = | 24 |
| STR 27 x 3 (fairly) = | 81 |
| Natural Attack Power (sum) | 105 |
From the chart, you can see that the Bastie has a NAP of 177, while the Claymore has a NAP of only 105. So based on his stats alone, the Bastard Sword would have about 70% more Natural Attack Power available to it than the Claymore, before the weapons damage was factored in. Since the damage rating of the Claymore is only marginally higher than that of the Bastie (l/bc/f vs. l/s/l), it's probably not great enough to offset the huge NAP deficit caused by the Dismal balance.
So there you go, Xiphias! A really long explanation for why your Bone-crushing Claymore takes more hits to kill than your Severe slice Bastie. I hope this was helpful! Oh, and the reason the claymore breaks more bones and severs more limbs is most likely because of the 'fair' impact. Higher impact weapons tend to have more 'explosive' combat hits. :-)
Happy Hunting!
JMF90
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 11:19 AM CDT
You're making a lot of assumptions that are factually incorrect, MARKCAT120.
Accuracy is agility * weapon balance * some log function. So really high balance isn't as good as you might think. Also, on the low end of weapon balance, there's a significant "fudge factor". As an example of this, you can forge a katar or claymore that has literally 0 balance and still hit decently with it (the weapon will appraise as "not balanced").
Also, damage stats are relatively more important in my experience than balance/suitability. And I say this having 99 in both strength and agility, it holds even more true for people with normal (lower) stats.
A good example of this in action is a 39 stone katar versus a mirror shiv. Their performance in elder armadillos is similar. In my hands, the shiv appraises as superbly balanced and superbly suited to strength, while the katar is poor/reasonably or poor/well, but the katar has higher damage ratings.
Another reason your "natural attack power" formula is wrong is that your actual attack power is based on weapon damage stats modified by the type of attack. So a slice will utilize mostly slice damage (with some impact) whereas a bash attack will utilize mostly impact damage.
The bastard sword is, generally speaking, a better weapon when you have difficulty hitting your target. But, if you're able to land hits with either weapon, the claymore will often land larger hits. As I said originally, this effect is hard to see if you're killing in 2-3 hits anyway.
If you want to really get technical, you need to know the actual appraisals of the weapons, not some 1-7 scale you invented. I'm working on getting accurate weapon appraisals myself when I feel motivated. With my skill (non-barb) here are the standard steel weapons I forge:
I'm not sure if these are capped, but if not then they're close. Note that this is before any grinding.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Accuracy is agility * weapon balance * some log function. So really high balance isn't as good as you might think. Also, on the low end of weapon balance, there's a significant "fudge factor". As an example of this, you can forge a katar or claymore that has literally 0 balance and still hit decently with it (the weapon will appraise as "not balanced").
Also, damage stats are relatively more important in my experience than balance/suitability. And I say this having 99 in both strength and agility, it holds even more true for people with normal (lower) stats.
A good example of this in action is a 39 stone katar versus a mirror shiv. Their performance in elder armadillos is similar. In my hands, the shiv appraises as superbly balanced and superbly suited to strength, while the katar is poor/reasonably or poor/well, but the katar has higher damage ratings.
Another reason your "natural attack power" formula is wrong is that your actual attack power is based on weapon damage stats modified by the type of attack. So a slice will utilize mostly slice damage (with some impact) whereas a bash attack will utilize mostly impact damage.
The bastard sword is, generally speaking, a better weapon when you have difficulty hitting your target. But, if you're able to land hits with either weapon, the claymore will often land larger hits. As I said originally, this effect is hard to see if you're killing in 2-3 hits anyway.
If you want to really get technical, you need to know the actual appraisals of the weapons, not some 1-7 scale you invented. I'm working on getting accurate weapon appraisals myself when I feel motivated. With my skill (non-barb) here are the standard steel weapons I forge:
| Weapon | Balance | Suitedness | Puncture | Slice | Impact | Weight |
| claymore | 9 | 89 | 19 | 72 | 46 | 61 |
| bastard sword (2he) | 44 | 56 | 11 | 44 | 22 | 45 |
I'm not sure if these are capped, but if not then they're close. Note that this is before any grinding.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
ISHARON
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 11:26 AM CDT
>>JMF90: If you want to really get technical, you need to know the actual appraisals of the weapons, not some 1-7 scale you invented.
How do you get these numerical appraisals?
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
How do you get these numerical appraisals?
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
JMF90
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 11:34 AM CDT
>How do you get these numerical appraisals?
Forge every weapon and grind until you find a change in appraisal. Now you have a known baseline value. Then do a TON of comparison appraisals. I started with a few assumptions, such as "not suited" = 0, "no" damage = 0, and grinding slice or balance is +1. Those assumptions have all been confirmed by my research.
I'm working on getting storebought weapon appraisals next.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Forge every weapon and grind until you find a change in appraisal. Now you have a known baseline value. Then do a TON of comparison appraisals. I started with a few assumptions, such as "not suited" = 0, "no" damage = 0, and grinding slice or balance is +1. Those assumptions have all been confirmed by my research.
I'm working on getting storebought weapon appraisals next.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
ISHARON
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 11:48 AM CDT
>>JMF90: Then do a TON of comparison appraisals.
When I COMPARE, the results sometimes seem to be less precise than when I appraise each item separately, even when I am "certain" about the comparison.
For example:
A gleaming silver greatsword is a two-handed edged pole-ranged weapon.
You are certain that it could do:
low (2/10) puncture damage
A gleaming silver sword is a heavy edged melee-ranged weapon.
You are certain that it could do:
poor (1/10) puncture damage
> compare greatsword with sword (held as one-handed)
You are certain that the gleaming silver greatsword does ABOUT AS MUCH PUNCTURE DAMAGE as the gleaming silver sword.
Does this comparison indicate that the greatsword is at the low end of low, and the sword is at the high end of poor? I realize that "low" and "poor" are ranges of values, but shouldn't low always be higher than poor?
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
When I COMPARE, the results sometimes seem to be less precise than when I appraise each item separately, even when I am "certain" about the comparison.
For example:
A gleaming silver greatsword is a two-handed edged pole-ranged weapon.
You are certain that it could do:
low (2/10) puncture damage
A gleaming silver sword is a heavy edged melee-ranged weapon.
You are certain that it could do:
poor (1/10) puncture damage
> compare greatsword with sword (held as one-handed)
You are certain that the gleaming silver greatsword does ABOUT AS MUCH PUNCTURE DAMAGE as the gleaming silver sword.
Does this comparison indicate that the greatsword is at the low end of low, and the sword is at the high end of poor? I realize that "low" and "poor" are ranges of values, but shouldn't low always be higher than poor?
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!
JMF90
Re: Claymore vs. Bastie
05/05/2010 11:56 AM CDT
>Does this comparison indicate that the greatsword is at the low end of low, and the sword is at the high end of poor? I realize that "low" and "poor" are ranges of values, but shouldn't low always be higher than poor?
Yes. Comparisons are all a range. Comparing "about the same" is actually +- 4 for a non-trader with high appraisal skill.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
Yes. Comparisons are all a range. Comparing "about the same" is actually +- 4 for a non-trader with high appraisal skill.
>describe boar
It's a boar. It doesn't like you.
